Preferences for health economics presentations among vaccine policymakers and researchers.
Preferences for health economics presentations among vaccine policymakers and researchers.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.08.049
复制
发表时间：
2018-10-15
期刊：
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Prosser LA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Richardson JS;Messonnier ML;Prosser LA
衡量与免疫实践咨询委员会（ACIP）有关的决策者和研究人员对向ACIP提交卫生经济学研究的推荐格式的偏好。我们进行了关键的线人访谈和在线调查，目前ACIP工作组成员，现任和前任ACIP投票成员，联络代表和当然成员，以了解偏好卫生经济学演讲。这些偏好包括结果和敏感性分析的介绍，卫生经济学研究在决策中的作用，以及改善卫生经济学研究指南的策略。最佳-最差标度法被用来衡量疫苗决策中卫生经济学陈述的七个属性的相对价值。最佳-最差比例调查的应答率为51%（n=93）。结果表明，汇总结果是决策最重要的属性（平均重要性得分：0.69），中间成果和分类成果最不重要（平均重要性得分：-0.71）。没有卫生经济学经验的受访者认为敏感性分析的重要性较低，而结果与其他研究的关系的重要性高于有经验的受访者（敏感性分析得分分别为-0.15 vs. 0.15;结果的关系分别为0.13 vs.-0.12）。关键的线人访谈确定了需要改进的领域，包括分析质量的额外信息和熟悉卫生经济学的联络员的作用。卫生经济学报告中的额外具体性可以为疫苗决策提供更有效的证据。
Measure the preferences of decision makers and researchers associated with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the recommended format for presenting health economics studies to the ACIP. We conducted key informant interviews and an online survey of current ACIP work group members, and current and previous ACIP voting members, liaison representatives, and ex-officio members to understand preferences for health economics presentations. These preferences included the presentation of results and sensitivity analyses, the role of health economics studies in decision making, and strategies to improve guidelines for presenting health economics studies. Best-worst scaling was used to measure the relative value of seven attributes of health economics presentations in vaccine decision making. The best-worst scaling survey had a response rate of 51% (n=93). Results showed that summary results were the most important attribute for decision making (mean importance score: 0.69) and intermediate outcomes and disaggregated results were least important (mean importance score: −0.71). Respondents without previous health economics experience assigned sensitivity analysis lower importance and relationship of the results to other studies higher importance than the experienced group (sensitivity analysis scores: −0.15 vs. 0.15 respectively; relationship of the results: 0.13 vs. −0.12 respectively). Key informant interviews identified areas for improvement to include additional information on the quality of the analysis and increased role for liaisons familiar with health economics. Additional specificity in health economics presentations could allow for more effective presentations of evidence for vaccine decision making.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Husereau, Don;Drummond, Michael;Loder, Elizabeth
通讯作者：
Loder, Elizabeth
影响因子：
9.7
作者：
Luyten, Jeroen;Beutels, Philippe
通讯作者：
Beutels, Philippe
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Flynn, Terry N.;Louviere, Jordan J.;Coast, Joanna
通讯作者：
Coast, Joanna
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Dempsey, Amanda F.;Cowan, Anne E.;Davis, Matthew M.
通讯作者：
Davis, Matthew M.
影响因子：
3
作者：
Chiou, CF;Hay, JW;Ofman, JJ
通讯作者：
Ofman, JJ